This topic lays the foundation on how the principle of "the separation of church and state" is taught in the Bible and why it is so important.

Jesus and the Jews

To learn how important concepts of a well founded society are taught by Jesus, we start this study with the following scripture:

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." Revelation 14:8.

This verse is the Second Angel's Message. It speaks of the fornication of Babylon with the kings of the earth and we remember that all words in scripture are important and we must diligently search out their meaning for today. Why? Because the Book of Revelation was written for our days of world history, shortly before the Second Coming of Christ, the consummation of the ages.

But we ask, `Who are these kings of the earth?'

And we read,

17:1 "And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." Rev. 17:1,2.

This scripture and church history says that the church founded by Jesus and the apostles, after a while began to have illicit relationships with the kings of the earth, the rulers over nations and peoples, the civil authorities. That means the early church after the passing of the apostles, and after many thousands more were added to the church books, that church joined itself to the state, thus causing a schism of those clinging to the faith of the pioneers and those who compromised their beliefs to adapt to circumstances.

So we ask, `Why should it be such a serious thing to unite or to join church and state? What could be wrong with the state making sure that the people keep the precepts of the church?

We want to know why uniting church and state is such a deplorable thing according to scripture. In order to study this we have to go back and study what Jesus taught.

We read,

"Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" Matthew 22:15-17.

They asked a very simple question. Jesus could have said, "Yes" or he could have answered, "No."

But if Jesus would have answered `yes' or `no,' he would have gotten into trouble either way.

Why?

If Jesus would have answered `yes' he would have gotten into trouble with the Jews because they hated paying taxes to the Romans.

But if Jesus would have answered, `no', it is not right to pay taxes unto Caesar, then he would have gotten into trouble with the Roman government because they, the iron kingdom, had made the Jewish state one of their possessions, and thus they required that the people pay taxes.

Either way, Jesus would have gotten into trouble.

But Jesus knew to what this question was leading and we notice the continuation of the account . . .

"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?" Mt. 22:18-20.

In other words Jesus is asking them, whose face is on the coin . . . and the answer came, `Caesar's face is on the coin.'

Consequently Jesus' answer came back, saying,

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Mt. 22:21.

Jesus gives here purposely an ambiguous answer which they could not use to get him into trouble with the Jews or with the Romans. But He did teach that there is a certain allegiance that we owe to the government and a certain allegiance that we owe to God. There is a duty that we have towards the government and to God. He did not define the duty but He made it clear that there are two kingdoms and we are responsible to both kingdoms. Caesar's kingdom, the civil government and to God, which is the church.

But we ask, `How do we know what we owe Caesar and what we owe God?'

Is it not true that we as Christians are citizens of two kingdoms? We are citizens of our country, the civil government, and we are also citizens of the heavenly kingdom - so what do we owe to either one of them?

We may also ask, `Should the affairs of these two kingdoms be mixed or amalgamated?'

What could be the answer to that?

Let us read first what we owe to either one of these kingdoms.

"And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deuteronomy 4:13.

The question is, `Could God have written these commandments on one, three or four tables of stone? Why two tables?

There is a very specific reason for the two tables of stone in the Bible.

Let us read the summary content for the tables of stone.

6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
6:5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. Dt. 6:4-6.

The words of verse five are basically the content of the first four commandments of the first table of the law.

But there is a second duty that we have. We find it in the Book of Leviticus.

We read the words of Moses,

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord." Lev. 19:18.

We find here two duties expressed: First of all we are to love God with all our being, and secondly we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Two responsibilities. One of which is vertical and the other horizontal. One is to God and one is to our fellow citizens, the government.

Let us see next how Jesus brings these duties together.

We read,

22:34 "But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer (a religious lawyer, an expert on the law of Moses), asked him a question, tempting him, and saying:
`Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?'" Mt. 22:34-36.

And Jesus answered him . . .

22:37 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (This we read in Lev. 19:18)
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Two great duties are presented. Our duty toward God and toward our fellow human beings.

So, we know now that the first table of the law defines how we are to relate to God, the vertical relationship.

The first law says, `Thou shalt have no other God before me.'

Does that define our individual relationship with God?

Yes, it does.

So does the second law, `Thou shalt not worship graven images.'

How about, `Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain,' does that define our individual relationship with God?

How about the fourth commandment that says that we are supposed to keep the Sabbath day holy, is that God's day? Does that have to do with our individual relationship with God?

Yes, it does.

So we know from the Bible that the first table of the law belongs exclusively to God. It does not belong to the civil government, nor to any earthly power. It has to do only with my relationship with God. The government has nothing to say about this table of the law.

Now, the second table defines my relationship with other human beings, it says,

`Honor thy father and thy mother.' That has to do with my relationship on a horizontal level. So does the 6th through the tenth commandments, `Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, steal, bare false witness and covet the goods of our neighbor.'

All these deal with how we are to live in our cities, towns and villages - treating each fellow citizens in such a way that we do not break any of these commandments.

So we have . . . .

. . . the first table belongs to God, and the second table belongs to the civil government to enforce.

So we ask, does the civil government have the right to have laws in its civil code that forbid murder, adultery, theft, bearing false witness, crave your neighbors goods to the point of finding ways of taking them away for your own use?

Do they have such laws because that is what the law of God says?

No.

The reason for those laws are that they are civil, they have to do with the well being of our society in which we live. It has nothing to do with religion but only with preserving, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But the government has nothing to say, or should have nothing to say, how I keep the first four commandments because they deal only with our individual relationship we have to God exclusively.

So we ask, `What happens when the government oversteps its bounds and becomes joined as `the state with the church' and tries to enforce religious services?

That as when you have serious troubles.

Why? The church has the responsibility to teach the people how to worship God. That is not the realm of the state. The state has the responsibility to sustain the civil order between human beings.

So how shall we proceed to find out the dangers of joining `church and state,' of this harlot fornicating with the kings of the earth, or for the church to become involved in the political process so to speak, the best way is to examine the life of Jesus and in particular the closing scenes of his life on earth.

So we know that Jesus was never accused of breaking any of the laws of the second table.

All the accusations raised against him, had to do with the first table of the law.

What are the examples?

We read in the story about the paralytic man, they let down through the roof, to be healed by Jesus, and the we find out what the reaction of the Jews was when they heard the words of Jesus where He said,

"... Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Mark 2:7.

These words offended the Jews greatly for they did not accept Jesus as the promised Messiah even though he had given repeated evidences that He did the work that the Bible says, the Messiah would do with the power which only God can give.

Jesus knew that the sickness of this man was caused by sins he had in his life and that is why Jesus spoke the words just cited and which offended the Jews, and they said,

"Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7.

According to the opinion of the Jews, which commandment was Jesus breaking?

They accused him of breaking the second commandment, `Thou shalt have no other god's before me.' - - They reasoned, because Jesus was claiming to forgive sins, he was claiming to be God on earth.

Time and again Jesus was accused of violating commandments in the first table of the law.

Lets read another example. Jesus had just said, `I and my Father are one.' In other words, we are one in greatness, one in power, . . . but He could back it up by His works. . .

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." John 10:33.

Here they accuse Jesus of breaking two commandments, the one of `taking the name of God in vain,' which is blasphemy, and that he was claiming to be God. So they accused Jesus of breaking the first and the third commandments, according to the Jews.

Once again, the accusation has to do with breaking the first table of the law. And we remember another incident where Jesus was accused to break the first table of the law. We read,

"Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day...." John 9:16.

On which table of the law was the Sabbath commandment? It is on the first table of the law - the fourth commandment.

Here is another scripture,

5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. . . .
5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." John 6:16,18.

Of what type are the constant accusations against Jesus? Do they say that he broke the commandments that are part of the second table?

No!

In their minds Jesus had never violated any of the laws that belonged to Caesar. Absolutely not.

One more incident. Jesus was speaking with the Jews and he said, You know, Abraham rejoiced to see my days and he was glad. To that the Jews said, you are not even 35 years old and you have seen Abraham?

So Jesus pronounces these tremendous words we read in the next scripture.

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58.

Notice, Jesus does not say, `I was.' He said, `I am.'

The Jews understood from these words that Jesus identified himself as the one who appeared unto Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3) when Moses asked, `When they see me, whom, shall I say, sent me?' And he was told, `Tell them I Am sent thee.'

In other words, according to them they knew Jesus was committing blasphemy because they thought he was taking the name of God in vain and was proclaiming Himself to be God.

So we find that they never accused Jesus of having broken any of the commandments of the second table of the laws. All they could find was, that he, so they interpreted it, broke the first table of the law.

Instead we find that these leaders were breaking the laws of the second table of the law, for the repeatedly tried to kill Jesus.

Jesus and Pilate

To learn the important principles which were incorporated into the Constitution of the United States of America we study about the trial of Jesus,

19:6 "When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." John 19:6,7

Which law are they accusing Jesus to have broken? They accused him of breaking the first table of the law and what is Pilat thinking?

He said, `Hey folks, that is your problem, not mine. Pilate understood what his realm of authority was. He said, `If he proclaims himself to be God, you go and take care of him.'

That has to do with your laws, not the laws I am defending. It has to do with your God, not with the state.

Pilate understood the difference better than they did, just like today, people lost sight of this important difference. They are confused on important issues and cannot for the life of them find them in the Bible.

They use strange interpretations. They should look at the case histories.

Let us read what swayed the Jews. They had a particular idea in mind.

18:30 "They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor (a person doing evil), we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:30,31.

But the Jews had a plan. They wanted to kill Jesus but they couldn't kill him without using the government - without using the civil power.

Notice how the verse ends. . . .

". . . It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." verse 31.

Did they want to kill Jesus?

Yes, they did.

Could they find anything that Jesus had done against Caesar's or Pilate's laws?

No, they could not.

But Pilate told them, I won't put him to death for breaking the first table of the law; that is your problem.' That has to do with you and your God.

They said, `But we can't kill anyone.'

So they say in effect, `Pilate, you are the authority of the state. How about you fulfilling the purposes of the church and you take his life.'

Think about this sobering thought,

Jesus was slain by a union of church and state for supposedly violating the first table of the law. [100]

And so the civil government delivered him to be crucified, despite the fact Pilate knew that was not in his realm, in his job description, his duties - and the question is, why did Pilate do it?

Three times Pilate, who knew Roman law very well, had stated that Jesus was innocent, and yet he delivered him to be slain.

We read,

"Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." John 18:38.

And again,

"Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." John 19:4.

And a third time,

"When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him." John 19:6.

Question: `Did Pilate send an innocent man, by his own admission, to die on the cross on Calvary?'

Yes, he did.

Did Jesus violate any of the civil laws of Rome?

No!

And yet, Pilate, even though he knew that Jesus was innocent, that he should not have become involved in suits about the first table of the law, he still condemned Jesus and delivered him to the crucifiers.

And so we recognize, the union of church and state came about even though the state knew that he was innocent.

Pilate allowed the church to influence him and to determine what he did.

The question is why?

But first let us point out that Pilate understood that there were two kingdoms; a concept the religious Jews, who claimed to worship God, refused to understand.

And so we remember that Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king. What did Jesus say?

`Yes,' he said, `My kingdom is not of this world.'

Would Pilate have Jesus crucified immediately if he had thought that Jesus meant an earthly kingdom?

Yes, he would have. But he did not, because he knew what Jesus said was true. He never considered Jesus to be a threat.

Dear reader, we find here revealed to us the workings of Satan; and it is happening today again.

It seems that even people we thought of as good, well meaning Christians, are getting involved in wanting to do away with `the separation of church and state' which our forefathers believed in and defended and jealously upheld for over 200 years, and which is now being repudiated - just because of sheer prophetic fulfillment. And yet, they cannot see it. They are blind to a dangerous degree.

Pilate knew that Christ's kingdom was not of this world. How many kingdoms are there then?

There are two kingdoms.

Two kingdoms which should be separated by a wall of separation between church and state. That is a divine right. It was a God sent influence which gave it to this country some 200 years ago. It brought peace and safety to untold numbers of people who otherwise would have to face death because of persecutions.

When Jesus said, `My kingdom is not of this world - it is from a different place, while yours, Pilate, is.'

How many kingdoms are there?

Two.

Yet the church, influencing the state, wants to kill Jesus as it has God's church on earth for 1260 years, because of things relating to the heavenly kingdom rather than to the earthly kingdom.

Why did Pilate condemn a man, whom he pronounced repeatedly to be innocent?

We read,

"And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him . . ." John 19:12.

Was the state a dangerous power, a threat to Jesus? No.

Who was the real threat?

The apostate church who is called a harlot, who commits abominations, who is filled with the blood of the saints. They are doing the same with Jesus as they did in Old Testament times with God's prophets. Once the church tries to influence the state and use the state to accomplish its purposes the result is what happened to Jesus.

Did this sink into your mind? Which side are you on now?

What we pointed out are the reasons why church and state should be separate - forever separate.

There are terrible consequences when the church tries to influence the state to enforce its agenda by law when it sees that things get out of hand morally in this country.

Wake up America. You are set to fulfill the final prophetic events we read about in the Bible which lead to blood shed just before Jesus comes again - the consummation as some like to call it - and if you will be found on the wrong side of the conflict, the persecuting side, you will lose out on being with God - on eternal life.

What we Owe to the Government

To learn the proper relationship between citizen and the state we shall study what happened in Jerusalem? We read,

"And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." John 19:12.

What is this church doing? They are intimidating Pilate by saying, `Pilate, if you do not condemn this man, you are going to lose your political position. And so Pilate delivers an innocent man to be killed because of political expediency.

Because he wants to keep his job, his office, his position. He wants to be reelected, for you see, the job was more important to him than the life of an innocent man.

So Pilate gives in to his constituency, even though he knows Jesus is innocent on all charges worthy of death by crucifixion.

Can such scenarios take place again?

The Book of Revelation says. Yes!. And it is going to happen in these United States of America, the home of the free and the land of the brave.

People like me, who came because we love the principles this country was built on. - That the state takes care of society and the church shall preach the Word of God, the gospel of salvation from sin, and people will keep God's law in cooperation with God's will and enjoy liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. The church will show its members the day of the Lord and not to worship images - that is the role of the church. It is not supposed to become joint up with the church in an illicit relationship to enforce its doctrines by law.

So we recall the words of Jesus where he said,

16:1 "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues (today it is churches, to do what?): yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:1,2.

Is Jesus only talking to the disciples?

For example, when Jesus says, "I will come to receive you unto myself," (John 14:3) is he talking only to the disciples?"

Do then only the disciples get into heaven? All of John 14, 15, 16, 17 - refers to all of the believers. And so notice John 16 verse 2, quoted above, again.

Therefore know this, `The greatest enemies of God's people are other people who claim to be God's people.' . . . Ever since Cain and Abel!

Was Cain an atheist?

No.

Did he bring an offering?

Did he claim to worship the true God?

Yes.

But he worshiped as he pleased. And he disobeyed God in his mode of worship. And what did he do with his brother? He killed his own brother, who was a true worshiper.

That is how confused people can get thinking they are doing right.

So, dear people, those of you who are headed for a union of your church with Rome and thus for a union of church and state, reconsider the case of Cain and Abel.

Who were the greatest enemies of the prophets? Oh, it was the Philistines, the Assyrians and the Babylonians, right?

No!

It was Israel, God's chosen people who wanted to kill the prophets.

Who was the ring leader who wanted to crucify Jesus? It was the church of that day and age.

It was the persecuted people, who fled from the institutional church of their time, and you think it is going to be different today? Don't you observe what "the church" is doing? How it works toward that same end? To establish its all inclusive prophesied authority once more to slaughter those who disagree?

How blind can we be?

Why don't people look at Rome and all those secret societies and what they do, to know what is coming? Could it be that perhaps some want to be part of it - the demise of Babylon - the losers of the Battle of Armageddon?

They can't see it, however. That is why the power that is joined up with Babylon is called "the false prophet," (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) for they say they see, but they do not.

The church which gave the world the `Inquisition' would, like the Jews, examine people regarding the first table of the law, their doctrines, and get an admission that they were teaching heresy, and then of course they had to be exterminated. But the church did not exterminate anyone - they got the state to do it for them.

So why did the state exterminate the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7:25)?

It was because the church asked the state to do it.

Not only that, they raised and trained their important people in the spirit of that, to persecute people who disagree with the doctrines of the church - without questioning anything!

They are slaves, thinking they are free.

All that is coming back again soon. It will be that way until the end of the reign of sin for it follows closely in its footsteps.

One more thing, let us find out if the second table of the law belongs to Caesar.

We read,

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher (civil) powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Rom. 13:1.

God established the civil power, therefore we are to obey it as long as it does not interfere with the first table of the law of God. [300]

Then we read,

13:2 "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Romans 13:1-4.

What is God saying here?

He says, Yes, I placed the civil power there. Obey it.

But notice,

13:5 "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
13:6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." Rom. 13:5,6.

What do we do for Caesar? We pay all of our taxes. What happens if we do not pay them? Then we not only incur the wrath of Caesar but also the wrath of God because God gave Caesar the authorization to charge taxes.

Ouch. Are you ready?

So we obey the civil government, not only because we are afraid of it, but because God has placed it there.

13:7 "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." Rom. 13:7.

What is the realm in which we should subject ourselves to Caesar?

Notice verse 8.

13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Rom. 13:8,9.

Which table of the law have these commandments to do with? They have to do with the second table.

Is the realm that belongs to the civil power according to the apostle Paul?

Absolutely, yes. Paul even quotes from the second table of these commandments, saying that these belong to the realm of Caesar.

Let us talk about a contemporary example: Can or should the government make a constitutional amendment that says, that only the marriage between one wife and one man is allowed because at the very beginning God made them male and female and he established marriage way back in Genesis?

No!

Because that is the domain of the secular power imposing religion.

Same Sex Marriage

However, let us briefly examine another example. Can the government make a constitutional amendment for purely secular reasons to preserve the civil order of society?

Yes.

Because marriage between a man and a woman has a proven track record. It has been shown that that is the best for society. So there is no problem for imposing such a law for purely secular reasons.

The problem is taking a religious reason and putting it into the Constitution, forcing people to live by it, and do that for the reason because the Bible says so.

That is a problem, because the civil government is not in business to further the goals of religion.

That doesn't mean that uni-sexual marriage is a good idea but churches should present the issues involved so people can make intelligent decisions and not just depend on the flesh alone.

The situation was many times that many of these people were on their 3rd or 4th marriage and what is worse, committing adultery or getting involved in uni-sex?

Actually both types of laws, for male and female married couples and uni-sex couples, are equally bad, isn't that so?

And we remember the words, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." John 8:7.

So, when a government has a law that forbids uni-sex marriage for secular reasons and someone gets married that way, does the government have the right to punish that individual because that is sin?

No, because that is a crime against the civil code.

What is the difference?

One is the violation of the law of God and the other a violation of the civil code. and they are supposed to remain separate from one another.

What about if you kill someone on this earth, does the civil government have the right to punish you for killing?

Does it have the right because there is a commandment that says, `Thou shalt not kill?'

No, the government is to preserve the life of everyone.

So we ask, is that a sin or is that a crime.

It is a crime. But in the sight of God, what is it?

It is a sin.

We ought to see the difference between crime and sin. Crime is against the government, sin is against God.

But then, if such an individual does not repent, he not only has to pay his dues to Caesar but he has to pay his dues also to God on judgment day. And that is even more serious.

Daniel Three Illustrates Violation of the Establishment Clause

Why is it such a serious thing of the harlot system to fornicate with the kings of the earth? What will happen as a result of this super, mega religious system, that is found in all of the world, that sits upon the multitudes of the world - who has great riches, gold and silver and precious stones - who gives her wine, her false doctrines to the nations - what will happen if this power joins with the state?

Then we will see the same scenes that took place during the trial of Jesus.

Jesus said, "As they persecuted me, so they will persecute you." He means to say we will have a repeat of the final scenes, that took place and led to His death on the cross.

Let us read a scripture in Jeremiah 27:4-8,

27:4 "And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters. . . ."

Now God is speaking.

"I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me."

Who gave the power according to this text? God gave the power. So God wanted that one to rule whoever he wanted to rule.

Looking at our days from a 2500 year old vantage point.

27:6 "And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.
27:7 And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him."

Who placed Nebuchadnezzar on the throne?

God did.

Does it say that everyone ought to subject him or herself to the authority of Nebuchadnezzar?

Yes, it says that.

What does God say if someone decides not to subject him or herself to Nebuchadnezzar?

"And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand." Jer. 27:4-8.

Can you see what God is saying?

He is saying that He has placed Nebuchadnezzar over all as the civil ruler.

He is saying, I demand that everyone be subject to Nebuchanezzar and if you are not subject to Nebuchadnezzar then you not only have to deal with him, you also have to deal with Me.

That we all should understand.

But now we have a problem. What could it be?

In Daniel chapter three we have the story of Nebuchadnezzar raising an image of gold - sixty by six cubits in size; and then he issues a decree - remember, God placed him in power as the civil ruler. In this decree he announces that everyone at the sound of the instruments should fall on their knees and worship the image that he has set up in the Valley of Dura.

And we know, it is God who placed Nebuchadnezzar to govern there.

God said to obey the king and if you don't, God says he is going to punish you.

But what did the three young men say to Nebuchadnezzar?

They said, we are not going to worship your image; we are not going to worship your god!

Yes, God said to subject themselves to the king, but what were they doing!

They were disobeying.

Let us ask this, `In what sense were the people to accept the leadership and rulership of Nebuchadnezzar?'

They were to subject themselves with respect to the second table of the law.

He had a right to demand that people do not break any of laws 6 through 10.

But now, Nebuchadnezzar was trying to legislate in the realm of God. He was trying to legislate in the realm of the first table. He was trying to establish religion, wasn't he?

Yes. By raising the image and demand from all to worship it, he was overstepping his bounds.

And what did the three young men do? They disobeyed his orders.

Did God reward them for disobeying the king's orders?

Yes, for you see Nebuchadnezzar had overstepped the boundaries placed on rulers of states.

However, these three young men were good examples for dependable, good service to the king. The Bible has nothing but good things to say about them, and we know the word of God does not do a whitewash for those who do not deserve it.

But when the king tried to establish religion, they said in effect, king, that realm belongs to God, not to you, and it is more necessary to obey God than man.

Let us read about it,

3:17 "If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." Dan. 3:17,18.

Is this civil disobedience?

Yes, it is.

Did God reward their civil disobedience?

Yes, because the king was overstepping his authority. He was legislating the first table of the law. That was illegitimate.

And so it is interesting to note, that, when Jesus came to intervene in the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar still did not get the point. He was still filled with his own wine.

We read,

"Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort." Dan. 3:29.

Was Nebuchadnezzar right? Could he give that decree? Could he give a decree to worship the true God?

No!. Because the civil power is not in business to tell people to worship God or not worship God. That is not their job - even today it is not -even if calamities come.

The civil government is in power to preserve civil order.

Daniel 6 Illustrates the Violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause

But there is another incident related to us in the Bible that relates a timely message.

The story of Daniel in the Lions den.

So we ask, who placed the Medes and Persians into Babylon to govern there?

Do you remember the handwriting on the wall, `Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin?'

Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and the Persians?

So, who gave the kingdom to the Medes and the Persians?

God did.

What about Daniel, was he an examplary servant in their kingdom? Did the kings of the Medes and Persians love him?

Yes, they did.

But the king was deceived by whom?

He was deceived by the religious leaders.

Do you remember who it was that tried to deceive the three young men in the valley of Dura? It was the Chaldeans, who were the ministers of Babylon, the priests, the theologians, the clergy.

What can we learn from this about whom we should trust today?

These Chaldeans go to the state and say, these three guys are dangerous, they don't obey what you told them to worship.

The same happened again in Daniel chapter 6 and we read, that Darius, being deceived by the religious leaders, gives the decree that no one can worship another God for a period of thirty days [350], and we read,

"Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." Dan. 6:10.

Did Daniel disobey the command of the king, did he?

Didn't God say that he put the king in power and to obey the king?

But what does God do to Daniel?

He rewards him . . . to such an extent that the angel of the Lord, the same who came to the fiery furnace, comes down and sits there with Daniel in the lions den and shuts their mouth.

They just sit there all night and those lions are just like kiddy cats. Big kiddy cats. Hungry kiddy cats. For the next morning when the men who had deceived the king were thrown into the lions den, they became cat food.

But when we read the account we learn that Darius didn't understand this religious experience either, because after this incident, were God was trying to teach him, you cannot legislate regarding the first table of the law, you cannot become involved in religion, notice what King Darius says,

6:25 "Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
6:26 I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end." Dan. 6:25,26.

Was that a legitimate or an illegitimate decree?

It was an illegitimate decree.

And so we recall that the framers of the Constitution of America, and especially of the first amendment, had a knowledge of Europe during the Middle Ages and the Colonial Period - just consider what the bloody Mary had done - and they had a knowledge of Scripture. And do you know that these experiences of Daniel chapter 3 and 6 teach the first two clauses of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

It is the first part of the first amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

It doesn't say of a religion or a church.

So, in Daniel chapter 3, did Nebuchadnezzar try to establish religion? Yes?

Yes he did for he raised the image to be worshiped this way ....

The second clause of the first amendment says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In Daniel chapter six, what was the king doing, was he forbidding the free exercise of religion?

Yes!

So we see Nebuchadnezzar says, `You have to worship this way,' and King Darius says, `You can't worship this way.'

The Clauses and More

So we have here these two stories which illustrate the first two clauses of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That must be because God was leading in the setting up of the United States of America, and yet, there are people who want to change the very concepts that gave us cherished freedoms and rights, which, if neglected and denied will leed to bondage and slavery.

Could it be that it is easy to cause people to be drunk with the wine of Babylon without realizing?.

And so we must remember that these two clauses of the first amendment are followed by civil rights which include:

1. freedom of the press,
   
2. free speech,
   
3. freedom to assemble,
   
4. freedom for the government to redress grievances that you have.

And at this time, they are all legislated against!!

Why would our early government put these two ideas of religious liberty and of civil liberty in the first amendment? They did so because they realized, that unless you have full religious liberty, you will lose your civil liberty.

So we should realize by now how important this message is. We are going down a slippery slope. It may be too late already to recover this nation. The new health care legislation is actually a cancellation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. And what do those `educated' theologians do? Nothing. They are asleep on their post of duty. Why? Because of the wine of Babylon.

In closing, read the a bit poorly worded words of a retired constitutional attorney and what he says about the health care bill:

The Truth about the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.[sic.]

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal health care (in) direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have health care insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas

Therefore, dear reader, the Beast power is going to raise up an image and everyone who does not worship the image is condemned to be killed by the state. Does that not make it important to know who the Beast is, the Mark and his name?

But there is a way out, that is, to receive the Seal of God and be saved.